> On 09/06/2023 16:00 CEST Wim Bertels <wim.bertels@ucll.be> wrote:
>
> Joe Conway schreef op vr 09-06-2023 om 09:16 [-0400]:
> > On 6/8/23 22:17, Pat Trainor wrote:
> > > I need to have a very large matrix to maintain & query, and if not
> > > (1,600 column limit), then how could such data be broken down to
> > > work?
> >
> > 100,000 rows *
> > 100,000 columns *
> > 8 bytes (assuming float8)
> > = about 80 GB per matrix if I got the math correct.
>
> based on my personal experience i would not use postgres in the case
> where you need many columns, u can work around this with json for
> example, but it will likely end up being less easy to work with
>
> as Joe replied: R or Python are probably a better fit,
> or another database that can easily handle a lot of columns,
> postgres is a great database, but not when you need a lot of columns
>
> (as you noted+:
> there might be another backend storage for postgres that can handle
> this better (or in the future?), but i don't think there is one;
> also there is the header for which standard 8K is provisioned anyway,
> so that is the first bottleneck (you can change this value, if you
> compile postgres yourself)
> https://www.postgresql.org/docs/current/limits.html )
Rasdaman may also be an option. Saw it a few weeks ago on this very list.
https://rasdaman.org
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAFj8pRDjE0mdL6_b86ZDawHtNeRPQLciWos3m3PGJueJ5COSjQ%40mail.gmail.com
--
Erik
